Throughout the seventeenth century, European civilisation was tortured by religious conflict. Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and other political thinkers of the time wrote against a background of terrible dislocations: the wars of religion; religion-tinged political struggles between great European dynasties; and the ruinous conflict between the British Crown and parliament.

The troubled times provided an occasion to rethink the proper relationship between the claims of religion and the operation of worldly (or secular) political power.

Although Hobbes's greatest single work, Leviathan (1651), consists largely of theological analysis to defend his model of the state, its most important line of argument uses entirely secular reasoning. That is, Hobbes analyses the function and operation of the state in terms of human beings' worldly interests.

For Hobbes, the state should aim at limited secular goals, such as peace and security, and the kind of material prosperity that these facilitate. It should view religious rivalries as just one more threat to peace.

However, he thought, the secular ruler cannot be merely indifferent to religious matters. To ensure that the peace is maintained, the ruler must suppress outward expressions of all religions except one - no rivalry of doctrines can be allowed.

Other seventeenth-century thinkers moved decisively in a more liberal direction. Among these, Locke was enormously influential. In A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689), he accepts the Hobbesian analysis, insofar as he sees the state as the result of a social contract and defines its role in entirely secular terms. But he draws totally different practical conclusions.

On Locke's account, men and women enter into social arrangements for mutual assistance and defence - against, for example, rapine, fraud and foreign invasions. It is the role of the state to protect citizens from these things.

At this point, his main line of argument identifies a distinction between the proper aims of secular government and those of spiritual teaching.

For Locke, the apparatus of the state is directed toward our "civil interests," which he defines as "Life, Liberty, Health, and Indolency of the Body; and the possession of outward things such as Money, Lands, Houses, Furniture, and the like." It is the duty of the secular ruler to provide protection for "these things belonging to this Life." The ruler's remit should not "be extended to the Salvation of Souls."

Locke reached these conclusions from within Protestant Christianity, and his stated reasons for limiting the role of the secular ruler to protecting worldly things include a mix of secular and theological concerns.

All the same, the Hobbesian analysis of the state lay in the background, and with it the argument that the essential point of the state is peace and security, and the worldly goods they allow, rather than any spiritual transformation.

By contrast with the state, Locke thought, a church is a free and voluntary society aimed at worship of God and the salvation of those involved. Its only power is of teaching and excommunication, and it has no jurisdiction over those who do not belong to it.

Perhaps Locke over-simplifies here, but his main point is the plausible one that religious organisations are focused on otherworldly doctrines and are ill-adapted for the exercise of secular power.

On Locke's account, it looks as if the state apparatus can do a reasonably effective job of maintaining order, protecting citizens, and advancing ordinary human flourishing. By contrast, it has no expertise in any otherworldly order of things, in identifying goods that transcend human flourishing, or in assisting with whatever transformations are needed to obtain these transcendent goods. It has no business with the salvation of souls, or anything analogous. Rather than favouring the views of one or other religion, the state should allow them all to pursue their own goals, as long as they don't produce civil harms.

Thus, Locke proposed a functional separation of religion and the apparatus of the state. The state should act for entirely secular reasons, based on knowledge that pertains solely to the order of this world. It should place no reliance on the doctrines of one or another religion. The different religious sects, cults and churches, in turn, should not pursue political power or influence in an attempt to impose their doctrines on the citizenry.

History has been kind to Locke, and I suggest that the model he put forward is plausible, independently of the urgent need for seventeenth-century religious rivals to find a modus vivendi. His arguments are deeper than that, and more principled.

In my new book, Freedom of Religion and the Secular State, I discuss Locke's arguments in detail, and conclude that similar lines of argument remain impressive and persuasive even today. They will not appeal equally to all comers, irrespective of their starting positions, but they should continue to convince many people, religious and otherwise.

I cannot pursue all the detail here, but I submit that we still have much to learn from Locke's approach. That, however, is not to suggest that his specific and detailed views should be treated as sacrosanct and immutable. Indeed, Locke sometimes failed to take his own reasoning to its logical conclusion. We can go boldly where he held back.

Perhaps most notoriously, Locke argues that atheists, Roman Catholics and Muslims must not be tolerated.

In the case of atheists, this is because they have no pretence of a religion to rely upon, and also because, supposedly, people with no belief in God and an afterlife cannot be trusted to keep their promises, covenants and oaths.

The first point is not logical, however, given the scheme of the overall Lockean argument. A state apparatus devoted solely to the protection of worldly things would not have a theological reason to persecute atheists, and an atheist need not claim any otherworldly beliefs in order to argue against persecution. All she needs to claim is that the state has no secular reason to persecute her.

Of course, Locke had no experience of a society where atheism is widespread. Indeed, atheism as thoughtful disbelief in the existence of any god or gods was virtually unknown in Europe in 1689.

During the seventeenth century, the condemnatory epithet "atheist" was commonly applied to individuals, such as Hobbes, who had unorthodox worldviews by Christian standards, but probably believed in a deity of some kind. If any atheists at all existed in Europe in Locke's day, they certainly were not in such numbers as to allow him to draw robust conclusions about their behaviour.

In later centuries, atheism became a live option, culminating in the current situation where many Europeans disclaim any belief in gods or an afterlife. This has not caused social collapse in European countries or a breakdown in their legal systems.

By now, the fair conclusion to draw is that atheists are no more likely than anyone else to renege on promises, covenants and oaths (or at least solemn affirmations). More generally, and contrary to Locke's own view, no residual role for religion is required in the Lockean model - you can be a perfectly good citizen, by Locke's own standards, without any otherworldly beliefs.

As things have turned out, there is no good reason for persecution of atheists. Something similar applies to Catholics and Muslims. Contrary to Locke's rationale for their persecution, loyalty to foreign powers has not, generally speaking, undermined the patriotism or good citizenship of either group.

I must emphasize, however, that Locke was not being inconsistent or hypocritical in arguing for religious tolerance, and then making exceptions for certain disliked groups. He offers worldly reasons why specific groups are a danger to civil society, and why they must be suppressed by the rest of us in self-defence, with the might of the state acting on our behalf. Within the Lockean model, this is a perfectly legitimate move, even if Locke's actual reasons are not, viewed in retrospect, at all persuasive.

The moral for us, perhaps, is that we should be reluctant to dream up secular reasons for persecutions, however plausible they may seem as we consider them in our armchairs.

The Lockean model of the state tends to defuse the recurrent problems of religious persecution and warfare, while offering an independently attractive explanation of state power.

From Locke's own point of view, however, it may actually prove too much. When taken to its logical conclusion, it may have more radical implications than Locke realized or would have welcomed.

For one thing, as it turns out that there is no plausible worldly basis for persecuting atheists, Catholics or Muslims, though there might be a basis to crack down on a sufficiently fanatical atheist community, Catholic prelature, or Muslim sect, if it became a danger to civil society.

For another, when taken to its logical conclusion the model permits far more in the way of "immoral" behaviour than would have been palatable to Locke's opponents or to Locke himself. If he were charged by opponents with permitting, say, sexual promiscuity, he'd be on shaky ground in denying it.

When he touches on this point, he seems to think that there is some good worldly reason to forbid promiscuous orgies - he is mainly concerned that these might be practised by some religious cult or other - but he never really spells out what it is.

Perhaps he thinks that sexual restrictions (to the extent of confining sex to monogamous, heterosexual marriages) are necessary for social stability. After all, human societies have invariably imposed at least some constraints on sexual behaviour.

But even if this argument was plausible in Locke's time, it is decidedly less so today, thanks to modern developments in hygiene, medicine and especially contraception.

By appropriate secular standards concerning the relevant things of this world (such as individual and public health) there might be reasons for the state to take some action to encourage certain kinds of sexual behaviour rather than others. But the best policy for the purpose might involve sex education in schools, the encouragement of "safe sex," and other relatively non-coercive steps, rather than blanket criminal bans of supposedly illicit sexual behaviour - let alone bans on an obscure religious cult's sex rites.

More generally, the Lockean model tends to separate the reasons for state action, not only from religious morality but also from any traditional morality that does not actually assist in protecting civil interests.

Locke could, of course, bite the bullet and accept this point; in strict logic, it does not undermine his model. It is not, however, an implication that would have been welcomed in 1689 by either Locke or his critics. Nor is it a welcome conclusion to modern-day religious conservatives and legal moralists.

In a sense, therefore, the Locke created a ticking bomb: his approach had radical implications for the role of the state in imposing moral legislation. Even today, these are playing out in our political debates.

Three centuries after John Locke's death, the Lockean model of the state is philosophical dynamite.

Actions

Share

Comments (99)

Michael Boswell :

03 Feb 2012 8:30:10pm

Russell Blackford fails to understand both Christianity in particular and religious thought in general. Within religion I include philosophical naturalism which many proponents call atheism. Maybe we should replace the word ‘religion’ with the words ‘world view’. Christianity, Islam and atheism all have a great interest in both the temporal and spiritual. Lock and Blackford might be able to separate them but I know no one within Christian social action that can. Quakers use to excommunicate anyone who went bankrupt. The evangelical Chapman sect opposed the British use of slaves in colonial sugar production. Rev Gribble stood for the right of Carnarvon Aboriginals against his Anglican pastoral supervisors. All of them did so because of temporal attitudes reflected spiritual problems.

As Cavanaugh points out, Blackford’s anti-Christianity is based on a lack of historical analysis of both at the time of Lock’s writing and the rise of the modern secular state. The separation of the idea of religion from politics and other social force is simply impossible. The other problem is Blackford’s ignorance of the state of religious belief in the 18century England. Roy Porter’s ‘English Society in the 18th century’ (1990) paints a national Church in decline and the ‘religious enthusiasts’ held among the Dissenters, some Anglican groups or Irish Catholic immigrants. With the exception of Irish immigrants, not much difference than today.

Finally, the idea of a religiously neutral state is as much of a fiction as anything being philosophically neutral. I am no defender of Melinda Tankard Resist. However the recent attempt to falsely connect her to fundamentalism gives us a glimpse at the tyranny that Blackford proposes. It gave a group of ‘atheists’ the right to ignore her arguments because they were tainted with fundamentalism. The difference between the religious and atheists like Blackford is simple. Blackford fantasises about being religiously neutral. Christian, Muslims, Jews and other religious people know they are not! An attempt to allow all to live harmoniously arose from with various Christian and Islamic sects because they did not want to have civil war. They acknowledge their differences and try to find ‘the law written on a person’s heart’. That is when the secular state arose. That is how the secular state has been maintained.

Steely Dan :

08 Feb 2012 10:56:24am

"Within religion I include philosophical naturalism which many proponents call atheism."...But shouldn't, because they are not the same thing.

"All of them did so because of temporal attitudes reflected spiritual problems."An interesting hypothesis. But could it be that these were secular issues that were being dealt with under the guise of religion? Where was the abolition of slavery by Christians in 200AD? In 400AD? In 600AD? The supposedly unchanging words of God are frequently used to justify support for secular causes - but I see no evidence that religion is the catalyst for change.

And religion can be used to champion just about anything. Want Jesus to be a hippie? New-agey priests have heaps of 'screw-the-rich' passages to support that. Sick of eating mung beans and want to make your mark on the world and not be taxed while you do it? The Prosperity Gospel is right there waiting for you. Not fussed by economics? Well don't worry, because we can find you some end-times prophecies too. It's all in there. If it wasn't, there'd be one denomination - not thousands.

"That is when the secular state arose. That is how the secular state has been maintained."By the religious all being voluntarily nice and respectful? Not by the secular Constitution which establishes a wall of separation of church and state?

Ronk :

15 Feb 2012 11:06:14am

Slavery was indeed progressively virtually eliminated within Christendom by 600 AD. However with the rise of the modern nation state and modern capitalism, slavery made a comeback worse than ever before, with slaves treated as chattels and people regarded as slaves merely because of their race. Both of which the Church had admanantly opposed from day one, and condemned and execrated by Popes from at least the 1400s onward. After another 400-year long struggle, Christians succeeded in re-abolishing slavery.

Ronk :

17 Feb 2012 12:29:09pm

Both of the above. As well as teh huge numbers of nominal Christians who disobeyed the Pope on this as on many other matters. If you think that it was not due to Christianity that slavery was abolished, perhaps you could point to even one instance in history where a non-Christian country abolished slavery before coming under the heavy influence of Christian civilisation?

Steely Dan :

17 Feb 2012 2:15:55pm

"Both of the above"I was being facetious, Ronk - just how many non-Christians were running around 1600s Europe? And how does secularism 'trick' Christians? (That reminds me of apologists arguing that the Boston clergy child sex scandals were the fault of secular Boston's liberal attitudes towards homosexuality!)

"As well as teh huge numbers of nominal Christians"And all those false Scotsman.

"who disobeyed the Pope on this"The earliest condemnation of slavery I could find from a Pope was Eugene IV in 1435 AD. But Pope Nicholas V was in favour of slavery 2 decades later. A few more decades go by (1488) and Pope Innocent VIII accepted slaves as gifts.So to say that the Catholic Church was solidly anti-slavery from 600AD is not correct. 1500s-1600s might be more like it.

And of course other Christian denominations were pro-slavery. Not hard to see why if you read the Bible.

Ronk :

17 Feb 2012 2:57:46pm

You seriously claim to see no difference between a nominally Christian slave-trader and a person who is actually making some minimal attempt to ptractise Christianity?

There were millions of non-Christians running around Europe in the 1600s. Among them the Turks who conquered virtually all of southeastern Europe and ruled it for centuries, and came within a whisker of taking Vienna in the heart of Europe and overrunning most of the rest. And they captured millions of Christians and enslaved them (the very word "slave" comes from "Slav", the Christians of Eastern Europe). And meanwhile non-Christians were kidnapping millions of young Christians from the Mediterranean coast and as far away as Ireland and enslaving them.

Try not to confuse a pope's personal moral failures with the popes' teaching. Pope (not-so-) Innocent VIII may have accepted slaves (whether this was in order to free them I don't know) but no pope ever taught that slavery is morally OK.

I note you have given up completely on my challenge to find even one non-Christian society which abolished slavery except under the influence of Christianity. The only rather pathetic complaint you have left is that even though nobody else has ever abolished slavery, Christians took a long time to succeed in their efforts to abolish it. Surely this is the fault of its enemies who resisted the change rather than the Christians. Probably a lot of Christians could have tried harder but gee they did what no other culture, nation, or society anywhere and anytime else in human history had succeeded in doing. Surely even from a purely secular point of view and even to a non-Christian, this is one of Christianity's proudest boasts, rather than something for which you absurdly seek to criticise it.

It's true that some heretical denominations were for a time pro- (or at least tolerant of) slavery. But by the early 19th century (except for a few small splinter groups in the southeastern USA) they had all come around to the Catholic view and in fact many of them were prominent in the abolitionist movement.

Steely Dan :

27 Feb 2012 11:02:22am

"You seriously claim to see no difference between a nominally Christian slave-trader and a person who is actually making some minimal attempt to ptractise Christianity?"No. Not because there's not a difference between following Christ and saying you follow Christ, but because we can't tell the difference. Christians (not all of them) owned slaves. It happened.

"There were millions of non-Christians running around Europe in the 1600s."And they were highly secular? i think not.

"Try not to confuse a pope's personal moral failures with the popes' teaching."Are you really trying to say that these Popes were actually in violent disagreement with the rest of the Catholic community on this one? Wouldn't that make these Popes nominal Christians by your definition? Or at least heretics?

"I note you have given up completely on my challenge to find even one non-Christian society which abolished slavery except under the influence of Christianity."I'll do you one better - I'll point to a society that never had slaves in the first place - indigenous Australians.

Love to hear your Biblical justification for abolishing slavery, too. Are you one of the 'slavery was actually quite nice in Biblical times' apologists?

Voluptua :

22 Feb 2012 3:52:10am

Could it be that the lack of slavery in "Christendom" was because the disintegrating western Roman Empire had long ceased to expand and acquire slaves, so the slaves just walked away or became "free" by default. How about the Byzantine Empire which during its expansion flooded Constantinople with slaves,-and this was condoned by the Christian Church throughout that Empire until its demise in the 15th century?

Michael Boswell :

03 Feb 2012 6:32:57pm

I have added my two bobs worth .... as for religion creating everything valuable in our society ,,, I suggest you start by reading the history of the interaction between religion and science from the history of science perspective. Then the history of political thought from the 12 century onwards. Even the philosophic principal of Ockham's razor comes for Christian thought!

Murray Alfredson :

30 Jan 2012 12:47:09pm

On your argument, I cannot see Locke's position as dynamite. Certainly there are 'conservative' (for which read, 'radical' or even 'rabid') Christians who would see the state's role as enforcing morality (as they define morality, of course) but the secular model does have the basis for establishing a sort of minimum order, a consensus order, by which a society as a whole can conduct itself. Personal and religious moralities will remain around for people to practice. Were we all decent human beings, there would be no need for the state to keep internal order. That is a big proviso, however.

Thaddeus :

28 Jan 2012 12:07:30pm

Locke's regime only "works" for Protestant Christian sects, not the Catholic Church, which is itself a sovereign body with a higher moral and spiritual authority than the state. It is as public as the state. Locke privatizes all religious bodies. The Catholic Church can not be privatized.

John :

30 Jan 2012 11:23:18am

The always dogmatic Kosminski I presume.

Bollocks!

The power of the "catholic" church is entirely that of a worldly power. That it is actually a political and broadly social institution that has always manipulated the political, social and economic motivations of the citizens of all nations.

The "catholic" church has always exercised a divisive influence in the world - and still does.

Only by abandoning its obnoxious exclusivist claims on all of humankind, and by thus ceasing to confront and reject all other religious and secular points of view. And all other Spiritual Adepts other than "Jesus", will the "catholic" church BEGIN to actively demonstrate the Wisdom, the love, and all-inclusive tolerance, and the truly self-sacrificial method taught and demonstrated by Jesus while he was alive.

Murray Alfredson :

Ronk :

15 Feb 2012 12:26:00pm

Not sure where you're getting the idea that Jesus was in favour of "all-inclusive tolerance" but it's certainly not from the Gospels where He says over and over again that if you don't do exactly what He says then you're goinng to Hell for eternity.

If you hold any belief to be true, then you are holding it as an exclusivist claim for all mankind (or as you hilariously put it "humankind"). If it's true for you it cannot be false for me. The Catholic Church is just a bit more honest than others about its claim to the truth, which many others make only by implication.

Steely Dan :

30 Jan 2012 12:20:46pm

"not the Catholic Church, which is itself a sovereign body with a higher moral and spiritual authority than the state. It is as public as the state"Actually, it is a state. It's called the Vatican City State, or the Holy See. You can either go live there, or agree to the terms and conditions that come with living in our secular society - which includes agreeing not to force your religion on others.

Steely Dan :

David Arthur :

28 Jan 2012 12:02:45am

When I was a small child of about 11 or 12, I asked myself if the Ten Commandments were just some arbitrary imposition imposed on humanity from On High, or whether there was some rationale by which the Commandments could be derived just by reference to this world ad the people in it.

After some thought, I decided that the Ten Commandments aren't too bad a set of guiding principles, whether there is a God or not.

Much later, I read of the Five Precepts of Buddhism.

I undertake to not kill.I undertake to not steal.I undertake to not lie.I undertake to not engage in sexual misconduct.I undertake to not overindulge in intoxicating substances.

These cover the secular components of the Ten Commandments, without bowing or scraping toward any god, real or imagined, without needing the mediation of a class of priests or a king.

Best of all, they aren't cast as a set of "Thou Shalt Nots" based on fear of retribution, but as a set of chosen actions based on wisdom and understanding of how humans can get by with each other.

Whether the secular state has a moral mandate or not, to the extent that the secular state is composed of people who create and support the state so that a civil society may exist, the secular state has a role in facilitating the undertakings of its citizens to treat each other so that we may all get along together.

Holly (Christ lives within) :

A non-theist :

09 Feb 2012 5:35:29pm

Actually, we are reaping a better world. There have been some notable exceptions and some of these remain (for the most part where equally distasteful secular ideologies have replaced religious ones), but over all, we are living in a better and better world as religion fades away.

So, I'd suggest that believing an organised religion's fairy tales is not a necessary requirement for good living.

Steely Dan :

27 Feb 2012 11:29:06am

"By some measures, I guess that's plausible to claim"My measure is the Census data.

"By others, the fastest growing major religious sector in Australia is Hinduism, Islam, Bahaiism"Who are 0.7, 1.7 and less than 0.5% of Australians respectively. They might be fast-growing, but coming off a tiny, tiny base. They are not 'major' religious groups in Australia. Non-Christian religion is only 5.6% of Australia in total. Nearly half of that is Buddhism.

Pentecostalism is neither 'major' nor fast-growing. Just 1.1%, up from 1.0% in 1996.

Non-religious were 18.7% of Australia in 2006, up from 16.6% in 1996. Christianity (as a block) was down to 63.9% from 70.9%. The only larger denominations that grew a tenth of a percentage point or more were Pentecostals. 'Other Christian' rose from 1.8% to 2.4%. "And on a world scale..."Source? World stats are usually bogus. You'd have to filter for despots declaring the religious adherence of their citizens.

Murray Alfredson :

30 Jan 2012 10:52:41am

One meditates and reflects, Holly. You might care to read one of my favourite discourses of the Buddha, to his son, Rahula (Maharahulavada sutta, Majjhima nikaya, 62). I expect you would be able to find it in a site put up by the circle around an American monk, Ajahn Thanissaro, on a website called accesstoinsight. The best printed translation is Bhikkhu Bodhi's revision of Bhikkhu Nanamoli's: The middle length discourses of the Buddha. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1995.

This is part of the practice of mindfulness, what Nyanaponika Mahathera called 'the heart of Buddhist meditation' in his book of that title.

I have read Christian essays, Holly, that suggest St John of the Cross's great mystical writings could do with being supplemented by the Buddha's teachings on mindfulness. The main thing is what works, not what one believes. May you be well and happy!

Holly (Christ lives within) :

30 Jan 2012 12:03:25pm

MurrayWe could all benefit from a little supplication from the great thinkers of old and some quiet moments in reflection of the whole.Thank you for your recommendations, I shall do a little meditative research, just for you.

Murray Alfredson :

David Arthur :

05 Feb 2012 10:57:13pm

How does one implement such noble ambitions?

They're not that noble, they all proceed from the simple "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", ie reciprocity, plus recognition of the fact that in order to live long happy lives we must allow others to do likewise.

It says something about our systems of governance and economics that we haven't yet achieved sustainability.

Murray Alfredson :

02 Feb 2012 11:15:51pm

'Love thy neighbour' incorporates very easily, Holly. For some reason, the five precepts are couched in negative terms, of restraint, rather than of positive action. Nevertheless, there are corresponding positives. 'Metta', often translated as 'loving-kindness' and sometimes as 'amity' or 'friendship', is the positive that relates to the restraint from harming or slaying. And like the precept, it also does not draw a boundary between human and non-human. Metta is the first of what are called the four divine abidings or sublime states (brahmavihara), the others being compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity. A favourite sutta on this subject is regularly chanted. The Metta sutta can be found in a small collection called the Sutta nipata. I should be surprised were it not to be found on the accesstoinsight web site. This sutta is quite a short read.

Holly (Christ lives within) :

03 Feb 2012 12:29:43pm

'Love thy neighbour' incorporates very easilyAgain, would that it be so we would reap a better world. I am suitably depressed from the lack of it.I have read a little of The Sufis and other mystics. Thankyou as always for your considerations.

Hudson Godfrey :

27 Jan 2012 10:41:16pm

This is all well and good granted that we view Locke in the context of the times in which he wrote. Perhaps it was too much of a leap for his time or his inclinations to raise the idea that moral questions might be tested according to standards that are distinct from moral absolutes. I think that is probably the defining difference between what is possible to understand in terms of the modern secular state and Locke's original Liberalism.

These days it might be permissible to say that if the role of the State is to act for the greater good then it must exercise a responsibility to act ethically on behalf of its citizens. Locke would have said morally rather than ethically, but I think the implications are similar. It is a notion which probably exceeds a mere democratic mandate in its purest form because it infers the imperative to act in ways contrary to the will of not just individuals but on occasion of the majority when there is a clear case of an ethical responsibility to do so.

Some may disagree with me, and I'd welcome a convincing correction, but I tend to think that modern ideas about what is meant by a Secular State speak to a more libertarian view. That is to say one where morality (or ethics) are the purview of the individual whereas the State's role is to take a back seat in those matters acting only to preserve life and liberty.

The limits of either view are set by a perfectly simple idea that one's freedoms can only be guaranteed insofar as they don't transgress the reciprocal freedoms of others. A formulation that may also be neatly rendered as the Golden Rule, "do unto others....."

The facts are that our understanding is shaped as much by practicality as philosophy. Whereas we can't see good ways to promote public health in the form of vaccinations or figure ways to prevent epidemics without State intervention, we're a whole lot less sure about it when it comes to issues of privacy and the persistent (though ugly) tendency of humankind to profess judgements with respect to one another's sexuality.

The article might do as well to ponder what it would be like if philosophers really had as much influence as we're apt to think they do. In the meantime since it seems utterly ridiculous to presume that any viable State has in immoral mandate there must be at least a tiny shred of suspicion that they need on some level to be morally supportable. The only real question is probably a moot one unless you ascribe to a school of thought that says people will overturn governments on purely philosophical grounds forgoing the usual practical considerations that we occasionally refer to as political realities.

Steely Dan :

27 Jan 2012 12:50:02pm

"Every time religion has dominated government we have seen those of other religions be brutalised and repressed"Absolutely agree. Though it's important to add that the separation of church and state also protects religious folk from oppressive anti-religious movements too (Stalinist governments come to mind, even though Stalin actually promoted a state church for a while).

Murray Alfredson :

Steely Dan :

30 Jan 2012 12:24:54pm

"Something to do with delusions of holding absolute truth, I believe."Definitely. Personally I disagree with Hitchens in that I don't view dogmatism as being necessarily religious, but I see Stalinist states and dogmatic religions as committing the same error.

Steely Dan :

03 Feb 2012 11:30:03am

"I find many of the followers of Richard Dawkins extremely dogmatic."I don't. Last year a prominent female atheist blogger complained about being hit on by a stranger in a situation that made her feel threatened. Dawkins wrote an article telling her to get over it, and most Dawkins fans (myself included) took him to task for his comments. Similarly, most atheists admired Hitchens' stance on religion but the majority opposed his stance on Iraq.

I agree that it's possible to follow atheist leaders dogmatically (and surely some people out there must be guilty of it), but in practice the atheist community is famously resistant to being herded, and more than happy to turn on its 'leaders'.

Ronk :

15 Feb 2012 5:49:07pm

Dan, "dogmatic" does not mean "believing everything that a particular person says" as you seem to think. It means "believing certain things absolutely regardless of the lack of evidence for them or even the evidence against them".

Steely Dan :

Ronk :

17 Feb 2012 12:31:35pm

If you're going to invent new supposed meanings of words which are radically different from the standard dictionary definitions, don't be surprised that you are unable to take part in a rational discussion.

Steely Dan :

27 Feb 2012 11:31:55am

Not a new meaning at all. It's one of many encompassed in the dictionary under 'dogma', as is yours.

But as I stated, the interpretation I invoked is consistent with the comment I was critiquing. Murray and I are talking about one aspect of it, you're talking about another (and incorrectly claiming exclusive rights to the word). Either join the meaningful discussion or don't.

Ian :

Michael Boswell :

01 Feb 2012 1:07:10am

This is historically inaccurate. Constantine’s edicts of toleration in 315 CE allowed a freedom of religion. It was only with the advent of a political natural theology was ‘secular’ states like Rhode Island and Pennsylvania were established. Indeed, the great defenders of a ‘secular’ United States was Christians implementing the Paul’s view that God’s law was written on peoples’ hearts.

Steely Dan :

01 Feb 2012 10:15:44am

"Constantine’s edicts of toleration in 315 CE allowed a freedom of religion"Not quite. The edict of Milan (313) allowed the freedom to worship the Christian god. And even then, Constantine ensured that all subjects (Christians included) continued to worship the sun. Being forced to worship the sun is not real religious freedom, even if you get to worship a deity or deities of choice in your free time.

"It was only with the advent of a political natural theology was ‘secular’ states like Rhode Island and Pennsylvania were established."That's right, secular societies. This reinforces Anderson's point ("the separation prevents the sort of atrocities we see every time religion dictates social policy").

Michael Boswell :

02 Feb 2012 11:19:02pm

I dont know about Milan and the worship of the sun ,,,, bit contary to Christian belief....

The problem with Anderson view is the state needs to be saved from religion but the original founders of secular states wanted to save 'the garden of the Church' for being molested by the state. No quite Anderson errant views.

Steely Dan :

08 Feb 2012 11:28:06am

My original reply must have got lost in the system.

"I dont know about Milan and the worship of the sun ,,,, bit contary to Christian belief"Most modern interpretations, yes. But remember that Constantine was ruler of an empire packed full of henotheists (polytheists with favourites), and it's possible that Constantine was even one himself. There's even probable traces of henotheism in the early books of the OT (ie. 'Elohim' was originally used as a plural for gods; and 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me' as opposed to just 'thou shalt have no other gods').

Early persecution of Christians actually arose from them refusing to give offerings to the Roman gods, not from worshipping the Abrahamic god. The Romans couldn't care less that there was a new god in town, it was the exclusivity (more importantly the lack of offerings) that was the issue.

Regardless of whether Constantine was truly Christian or not - the fact is we know he didn't run a truly secular empire.

"the original founders of secular states wanted to save 'the garden of the Church' for being molested by the state."Actually, they wanted more than just that. Many of the original founders of the original secular state (the USA, whose Establishment Clause is the basis for our S116) were deists, pantheists and 'cultural Christians' who not only wanted to stop religions persecuting each other, but wanted religions to stop persecuting the non-religious. The wording also denies the non-religious the chance to legislate against religion.

Ian :

21 Feb 2012 7:32:59pm

"I dont know about Milan and the worship of the sun"they worshipped Mithra, the sun god before Jesus. Mithra was born of a virgin on 25 Dec, had 12 disciples, died to redeem (and had a last supper) and rose again 3 days later - seem familiar?

Ronk :

Fred Slocombe :

26 Jan 2012 11:14:54am

The Secular Moral Mandate is founded in nature. It's very simple. Members of our species must cooperate to survive. Making the idea more complicated only serves those who want to exclude certain other members.

Hamish :

26 Jan 2012 6:50:25pm

Co-operation for survival does not exclude persecuting minorities - if the majority band together they can survive well while persecuting a minority, indeed they will do better by exploiting the minority, perhaps by enslaving them. The morality of protecting the rights of all can not come from the idea of co-operation..

Steely Dan :

27 Jan 2012 12:55:36pm

Fred, its sounds like you're slipping into a naturalistic fallacy here. Morality isn't the survival of the fittest, it's about human social interactions. Surviving is definitely a shared value, but then again not wanting to be killed by the other tribe is too.

O come on ye faithful :

26 Jan 2012 8:45:23am

Since each religion, and indeed, each denomination claims to hold the sole unyielding truth from the creator, it is patently obvious that a democracy like ours cannot accommodate all of these (often incompatible) doctrines into our laws and Constitution.

A secular state ensures that no group (large or small) is disadvantage simply because of faith. It is also to ensure that a theocracy cannot develop by either force or by vote. This safeguard has more to do with protecting theists from going each other's throats than imposing atheism on society.

Gigaboomer ®:

Steely Dan :

27 Jan 2012 10:00:39am

If you remove any notion of belief in gods or supernaturalism from the definition of 'religion', and dismantle the definition of 'faith' to mean 'acceptance of a fact to be likely true' - then I agree, Secular Humanism would be a religion rather than just a philosophy. And so would cricket.

Hudson Godfrey :

27 Jan 2012 9:43:28pm

That theory only seems to work when you base your assumption that "Secular Humanism is by default a religion" on the assumption that only religion can ever define our morality. This is of course a fallacy because as Locke shows we can as readily adopt a philosophy to fill that void.

Ergun Coruh :

I would like to draw your attention to the word indoctrinate. Indoctrination is filling a child’s mind with one-sided subjective opinions that do not rely on facts. I guess we may reach an agreement to qualify those opinions and where they originate from as non-factual, mystical, spiritual or supernatural. I don’t mean necessarily they are bad or evil please note.

Influencing someone with non-factual opinions may not always be harmful. If someone believes fairies that glow at night in their backyard, or they believe star signs, or they believe a soul, or a spirit to grant everlasting life these seem pretty harmless and we should tolerate them.

Also if someone takes only peaceful messages from a religion and ignores the evil parts such as disrespecting or killing the others, then perhaps the pain religions inflicted in human beings throughout history may be set aside; we then may consider such benign realisations as cultural nuances, embrace those individuals, say “good for you”, and move on.

But it is one thing that a child believes in Santa Claus, it is another thing if you teach them that other religions are evil and he should one day learn to blow himself up and kill as many as possible from other religions for reserving a good seat in heaven.

Or it is one thing to teach peaceful attributes of a religion and respect for others and it is another thing to inflict hostility in the heart of an innocent child by labelling all other religions as fake and their believers inferior.

Or it could be another thing to teach a child all religions and atheism in the context of ethics and objective history along with science and theory of evolution, and eventually let them decide whichever religion to believe or not to believe anything at all.

The issue here is not about legislating how parents should raise their kids but whether world nations should any longer endorse religious indoctrination through publicly or privately funded faith schools.

In Britain recently the UK Government passed a law to abolish public funding of faith schools. This is an important step if we want to build peaceful democratic societies.

This is also a clear message from a Western government on the dangers of sponsoring faiths schools, which often singlehandedly indoctrinate kids with hatred and cause painful segregation inside the civil society they breed within.

Hence this is in my opinion the way the message on the billboard should be read.

Children are the pillars of our future. Can we afford to let them be raised in intolerance?

Put another way do we need to tolerate the intolerant?

Just as we don’t indoctrinate children with racism and holocaust denial we shouldn’t indoctrinate them with subjective one-sided religious thinkin

Tom1 :

05 Feb 2012 11:28:44am

A good comment. My grandchildren, and I have 10 of an age they can think for themselves have not been "indoctrinated" at either home, school, or church. They have grown into intelligent,honest, caring, well adjusted young adults, with little interest in any religion, or persuading anyone else to be anything other than what they want to be. I hope they stay that way.

Ronk :

Steely Dan :

17 Feb 2012 2:31:39pm

In the context of religion? That's easy - my own. Both identify as agnostic atheists (like myself), but neither told me that I should or shouldn't believe in a god. Our house had children's illustrated bibles and other child-focused religious texts, including ancient Greek and aboriginal myths (some of which I do count as religious indoctrination). We had a few unabridged Bibles on the shelf as well. I was allowed to receive religious education at school (which I did because all my friends were doing it), and was regularly taken to church by grandparents. If there was any indoctrination going on in my childhood, it was weakly pro-Christian. I don't remember hearing my parents (both baptised Catholic) say that they don't believe in a god until I was in my late teens or early twenties.

Andrew C :

25 Jan 2012 4:17:20pm

I think the reason that atheists have proven not to be a threat to the state has to do with integrity, or 'self' construction/protection/maintenance. I think a lot of the morality you suspect Locke would prefer to the logic of liberality / licentiousness is bound up in protecting people from the vulnerabilities of human nature - for example, the vulnerability to addiction, or the vulnerability to poor choices in youth.

Holly (Christ lives within) :

25 Jan 2012 2:29:59pm

An excellent commentary to kick off the parameters of the secular debate in the year 2012 and coming from a committed Atheist added fuel for the fire.It is extremely well presented and fairly set forth.

Steely Dan :

25 Jan 2012 4:41:11pm

How does the article being written by an atheist add "fuel to the fire"? The article was about the merits of secularism, not atheism, and could just as easily have been written by a pastor or a rabbi. Or does merely saying that you're an atheist count as 'fighting words'?

I worry that some people see the term 'secularism' and read 'atheist government' - when that simply is not the case. States that promote atheism are not secular. There is a difference between an 'atheist government' and a government that has no official opinion on the existence of a god or gods. Secular states are the latter, and they are the best system for governing religiously diverse populations without discrimination.

Holly (Christ lives within) :

25 Jan 2012 9:23:22pm

The article is in a nutshell about Blackford’s new book Freedom of Religion and the Secular State, in which he discusses ‘Locke's arguments in detail, and concludes that similar lines of argument remain impressive and persuasive even today’.I was surprised he has leaned so heavily on the political thinkers of seventeenth century such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke in ‘rethinking the proper relationship between the claims of religion and the operation of worldly (or secular) political power’.I think it is an excellent approach that adds "fuel to the fire" of discussion that could fan either way.I applaud Mr Blackford on the insight of reaching back into the past for the inspiration for his book adding much needed "fuel to the fire", lacking in robust discussion.

Janice Wallace :

27 Jan 2012 12:56:19pm

He could hardly 'go forward' for his material could he? Obviously, he had to reach backwards to observe the repulsive nature of religion and as a result, the rise of a different approach, including a secular one.

Holly (Christ lives within) :

27 Jan 2012 1:26:21pm

IQ relative a diligent and thoughtful writer would observer all aspects of past society from a standpoint of non-bias. To reach back into antiquity solely to judge the reality of the time would I hope is not of Russell Blackford's nature. Surely we have a higher opinion of him than this, I certainly do as his writing style demonstrates an eloquent intelligence that is on display.

Jeremy C :

27 Jan 2012 7:25:46am

I agree with Steely Dan on this and I am a christian.

As I understand it a secular state is where the institutions and the processes that make up those institutions (e.g. laws) do not consciously favour or respond to any philosophy or belief over that of another.

Steely Dan :

27 Jan 2012 10:10:34am

Thanks Jeremy C. Isn't it depressing that you had to add "and I am a Christian" to counter the perception that secular government is somehow 'anti-Christian'?

Most of the original beneficiaries of the first secular state were minority Christian groups who feared persecution by larger groups. Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists should be an appendix to the US Establishment Clause and the works that it inspired - notably our own Section 116.

Rob72 :

27 Jan 2012 10:55:57pm

Nicely put Steely Dan. There is a common misperception around that separation of church and state is about keeping religion out of the public sphere - which was never its purpose. The truth is that the notion of secular government arose out of the Reformation as a means of protecting churches, especially minorities, from interference by the state in their beliefs and practices, following some egregious examples of states appropriating religious mechanisms for political ends. A secular state that respects all religious beliefs and positions (including atheism) but endorses none is probably the best protection known for freedom of conscience.

Colin :

25 Jan 2012 3:22:29pm

@James Picone

You should have recognised that Russell Blackford is the name of an Australian atheist philosopher. How can an atheist argue that ethics does not exist without religious backing? That atheist, if one exists, would have to make too many concessions to religion and its importance.

______

On the article itself:

"Perhaps he thinks that sexual restrictions (to the extent of confining sex to monogamous, heterosexual marriages) are necessary for social stability."

Children need a mother and a father. Neither mother and father are replaceable by another mother (lesbian parenting) or another father (gay parenting). Studies that have looked at the parenting done by same-sex parents do not look at the individual moral and ethical philosophies of children that have been parented by the same sex parents, nor would they look at each child's metacognition surrounding moral and ethical issues. They look at whether the child has been fed well, and other more easily determined indicators to determine the quality of parenting offered by same-sex parents vs. heterosexual parents.

Indeed it is impossible to tell if the child has grown up with a good sense of how to decide between what is moral and what is immoral because humanity is so ambivalent on what these mean. For example: 'are children adopted and parented by same-sex parents more likely to accept same-sex marriage as okay?' If they have had a positive experience the answer is clear. But is it a good thing to accept same sex marriage as okay, or is it a bad thing? Opinion is divided.

Now, if a child grew up with a parent(s) who happens to be important Anonymous (that internet group whose members don a white mask)member who thinks attacking government websites is okay, because the government wanted to censor the internet. Is that moral or immoral? Again some people don't think that governments should get this kind of retribution and believe the proper course of action is to wait till the next election and vote the government out of office, others believe civil disobedience is okay, and will go to varying lengths of disobedience. Opinion is again divided.

With religion, you may find dogmatic blanket bans without further considerations. But with secular society, you find high amounts of relativism ('as long as you don't harm people [according to my opinion of what harming people is that may vary depending if i'm a utilitarian or otherwise] what you do is fine' - I won't call it moral or immoral).

Steely Dan :

25 Jan 2012 5:27:38pm

"You should have recognised that Russell Blackford is the name of an Australian atheist philosopher"Should he? Russell Blackford isn't exactly a household name.

"Children need a mother and a father."Data please. Actually, don't bother until you show how that's relevant to the issue of marriage.Then you can try and argue that gay parents need to be subjected to this philosophical evaluation system of yours (that heterosexual parents currently get a free pass on).

Chris :

Am I wrong in thinking that the author assumes that "appropriate secular standards" and what the "relevant" things might be is self evident?

It seems that whether we agree or not with Muslim or Catholic or any source of standards, at least what is clear is that religionists have a source while it is difficult to see what source the secular state might appeal to.

We (in the West) still live in the shadow of the Judeo-Christian tradition and owe much of our sense of what is "appropriate" and "relevant" to that tradition.

To take a case in point, why, in the absence of that tradition, would we affirm the equal dignity of all human beings, men and women, gay and straight, black and white, Jew and Greek and Aussie too? "It's just obvious," does not seem to offer sufficient reason in the face of other worldviews that offer conflicting views and might claim they are equally "obvious."

In sum, the search for serious agreement about the norms that will govern late 21st century global culture is not as simple as simply adopting a secular ethic. What is "relevant" or "appropriate" are contested terms.

Steely Dan :

25 Jan 2012 2:46:05pm

"We (in the West) still live in the shadow of the Judeo-Christian tradition and owe much of our sense of what is "appropriate" and "relevant" to that tradition."Maybe many do. Yet those raised in other religious (or non-religious) and cultural traditions also have the same sense of what is appropriate and relevant in a secular sense.

"why, in the absence of that tradition, would we affirm the equal dignity of all human beings, men and women, gay and straight, black and white, Jew and Greek and Aussie too?"Because we value it. That's why we asked for it. That is purely self-evident. As to why we feel the need to want to be treated equally and treat others equally, look to psychology. It's an interesting topic, but hardly relevant to this discussion.

And you do realise that equality for all is a relatively recent addition to the mainstream Judeo-Christian value system?

"the search for serious agreement about the norms that will govern late 21st century global culture is not as simple as simply adopting a secular ethic"Maybe not, but you're missing the point of the article. Blackford is talking about governance, not ethics or morality.

BAN :

Thoreau :

26 Jan 2012 10:25:24am

Yes, it's good to see a contribution to ABC Religion and Ethics that doesn't assume that ethics is the exclusive province of a particular version of religious thought. Several recent articles have treated with barely disguised contempt those they disagree with.

Atheism and Theism are not synonyms for criminal or saint. They relate to conclusions one has reached about the design and management of the universe.

Having said that, if the particular version of theism one believes in obligates one to 'seek out and destroy' all enemies of one's god, as has been a common theme of Judaeo-Christian theism, then this alters the picture.

Atheists, unless also social or political ideologues, have no reason to 'seek out and destroy' anybody. A fanatical atheist, despite what Blackford suggests, is no more of a social threat as such than a fanatical butterfly collector.

Ronk :

17 Feb 2012 2:15:42pm

"Common"? Please name even one Judaeo-Christian in history who thought his belief in God obliged him to 'seek out and destroy' all "enemies of one's god" (whatever that means).

A fanatical Judaeo-Christian (such as for example Mother Teresa or Francis of Assisi) has no reason to 'seek out and destroy' anybody is no more of a social threat as such than a fanatical butterfly collector.

The only Judaeo-Christians who have sought out and destroyed anybody are those who did so because of their social or political ideologues.

In contrast, whilst there are many atheists who do not seek out and destroy non-atheists, the history of the last 220 years show that whenever atheists gain power this is exactly what they do, and the more fanatical the atheist, the greater the holocaust.

Crow :

"Please name even one Judaeo-Christian in history who thought his belief in God obliged him to 'seek out and destroy' all "enemies of one's god""

you are kidding right?

St Bernard of Clauirvaux "The Christian glorifies in the death of a pagan because thereby Christ himself is glorified"

Ambroise "they were slaughtered every one. For this be the Creator blessed"

Richard I had 2700 Muslim captives (men, women and children) kneel and have their throats slit one by one. The Armies bishop blessed the slaughter as pleasing to God for removing non-believers.

When crusaders ransacked Orthodox Constantinople, slaughtering, raping and pillaging its inhabitants the Pope replied to the deposed emperor that it was a 'miracle that God had wrought to the true faith'

On the Wider Web

There is something degenerate about the politics of Greek debt. It is as though nothing has been learned in 2,000 years - as if the left had forgotten the powers of capital and imperialism and the right cannot make a distinction between the financial economy and productivity.

From the beginning, polling was in the business to make headlines, and that is pretty much what it continues to do today. The seeming accuracy of results to the tenth of a percentage point doesn't stand up to basic methodological scrutiny, nor does the content of the questions themselves. If the devil is in the details, the details about religion polls are devilishly difficult to trust.

Best of abc.net.au

Boutique cheese imports up

Australian boutique cheesemakers say the growing levels of imports in their field make it hard to compete.

Subscribe

How Does this Site Work?

This site is where you will find ABC stories, interviews and videos on the subject of Religion & Ethics. As you browse through the site, the links you follow will take you to stories as they appeared in their original context, whether from ABC News, a TV program or a radio interview. Please enjoy.